Posts Tagged ‘Republican National Convention’

There was virtually no discussion of foreign policy at the Republican National Convention. This was entirely appropriate given the crisis and priority of domestic issues. Yet I haven’t even seen a single article discussing this issue at all, and it is going to be important.

Here is the key factor: Mitt Romney, the Romney-Ryan ticket, and Republican congressional candidates have a variety of choices on foreign policy. Some of them can be bad and because there are different and complex issues the line taken will not—and arguably should not—be consistent.

Of course, there are the general principles: make America strong and respected again; support the soldiers; help friends and make enemies sorry that they are enemies. There must be an end to apologies and the defense of legitimate U.S. interests. Popularity is okay but respect and trust are far more important. Avoid either isolationism or excessive interventionism and get over the democracy-solves-all naivete. Don’t be chomping at the bit to go to war with Iran as a supposed panacea.

These are important but these principles don’t necessarily tell us how to do things. An average Arab citizen put it best in private conversation: “We don’t want an American president who acts like an Arab. We want an American president who acts like an American.” The old diplomatic virtues of credibility, national interests’ protection, preserving alliances and promises, recognizing friends and enemies, and so on need to be reinstalled.

The easiest theme is to stop helping anti-American dictators in Venezuela and several other Latin American countries; the Muslim Brotherhood (everywhere, including Hamas as the ruler of the Gaza Strip); and Hizballah; as well as many small terrorist groups and al-Qaida.

The basic grand strategy for the Middle East should be to form and lead a very broad and very loose—not institutionalized—alignment of forces opposing Islamism. These include showing real leadership to the Europeans, many of whom are better on this issue than Obama. It also means supporting Israel, of course, but there is a long list of others:

Governments: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain (despite its faults), Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya (we hope, Obama can claim credit for that one), Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia (despite its faults), and the United Arab Emirates. You can add some other former Soviet Muslim-majority republics.

Opposition and democratic moderate movements: Iran, Lebanon, Syria (where the United States is supporting the Islamists!), Tunisia, and Turkey (see Syria, above). Let’s also keep in mind the Berbers, Christians, and Kurds in general as communities that overwhelmingly link their survival to fighting revolutionary Islamism. Such ethnic communities can also be found in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This cooperation to defeat radical Islamism, however it disguises itself, should be the backbone of U.S. policy. It can be implemented in a thousand different ways. Post-victory planning, which better start soon at least among independent analysts, needs to define these.

There are some Middle East problem countries that require special consideration.

It is time for a withdrawal from Afghanistan and a clever policy of backing—with a mixture of covert and financial as well as other assets—those who will fight to keep the Taliban out of power. Afghanistan is not going to be democratic or a nice place. But it must a place that does not threaten America again.

Yemen is a mess and, like Afghanistan, will continue to be a mess. The U.S. policy should cooperate to the maximum extent with Yemen on fighting terrorism without illusions about the nature of the regime and its willingness to betray the United States at any moment.

Qatar must also be treated with great caution. For reasons of local pride and ambition, it likes to stir up trouble and often supports Islamists, as well as playing footsy with Iran. Qatar should be treated with extreme suspicion not because its interests are different from America’s (everybody’s are) but because it likes to play the role of joker in the deck of cards.

Unfortunately, there is a parallel here with the far more important case of Pakistan. This is a headache without resolution. On one hand, the United States must ensure that the regime is not overthrown by radical Islamists. On the other hand, the United States cannot trust Pakistan at all to cooperate in fighting terrorism. Indeed, Pakistan is a major world sponsor of terrorism, not only against India but also to help the Taliban in Afghanistan, even—as we’ve vividly seen—al-Qaida! As the United States withdraws from Afghanistan the relationship with Pakistan should be reduced.

Need further proof of how hopelessly liberal the mainstream media really are? Just consider the coverage of the accusations of incivility and incitement hurled at Republicans and conservatives by Democrats and liberals in the aftermath of the December shootings in Tucson.

The charges were almost without exception reported in the most matter-of-fact manner, with hardly any provision made for context or examples given of liberal hate speech against conservatives – of which volumes could be written using a sampling of quotes from the past decade alone.

The fact is, President George W. Bush was ridiculed and vilified and demonized by liberals and leftists on a scale dwarfing any of the verbal abuse to which President Obama has been subjected.

But the left’s animosity extended well beyond one man sitting in the Oval Office. Liberals spent the better part of eight years spitting scorn and rage at those of their fellow Americans benighted enough to actually vote for a man routinely likened to a terrorist, a mass murderer, and a war criminal.

During the fight over ballot counting in Florida after the 2000 presidential election, Al Sharpton accused Republicans of wanting to “do the same thing to us” that “Hitler in his wickedness and evil” did to Jews.

In 2004, Newsday columnist Hugh Pearson took a look at the Republican National Convention, held that year in New York, and was reminded of “Nazi rallies held in Germany during the reign of Adolf Hitler.”

New York Post gossip queen Cindy Adams welcomed Republican delegates to that convention with a column stinking of condescension and class superiority, as in her remarks that “not all our hotels are goat-friendly” and that “I met one delegate’s girlfriend. She was a cow. A real cow.”

Adams was just getting started. “I welcome them,” she wrote of her countrymen whose only crime was attending a Republican convention in her city. “I understand them. Their Architectural Digest is Home Depot. Class is Anna Nicole Smith. Couture is Sears. For their collections, they go to Wal-Mart. It’s the Evening Wear section when buying corduroy . Even their faces are polyester.”

The novelist Jane Smiley, writing shortly before the election about why she would be voting for John Kerry, called Bush “an amoral prevaricator and ruthless opportunist,” adding, “I consider a vote for Bush a vote for tyranny.”

Bush won, of course, and Smiley, by now marinating in a stew of hate and hysteria, knew why, writing a post-election analysis that castigated Bush voters for their brutish violence and “unteachable” ignorance – she used the latter word or a variant of it no fewer than 11 times in what was a relatively short essay, as in “The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in this country” and “The error that progressives have consistently committed over the years is to underestimate the vitality of ignorance in America.”

The day after Bush’s reelection, The New York Times canvassed liberal New Yorkers for their reactions. A Manhattan resident described as a “retired psychiatrist” told the Times he was “saddened by what I feel is the obtuseness and shortsightedness of a good part of the country – the heartland. This kind of redneck, shoot-from-the-hip mentality and a very concrete interpretation of religion is prevalent in Bush country – the heartland.”

Another New Yorker quoted in the article declared, “New Yorkers are savvy. We have street smarts. Whereas people in the Midwest are more influenced by what their friends say.”

(This coming from a liberal Manhattanite – a class that has no equal when it comes to sheer insularity and susceptibility to groupthink, as witness the late film critic Pauline Kael’s lamenting after the 1972 election that saw President Nixon carry 49 states, “I don’t know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”)

Keith Burgess-Jackson, an academic writing at the conservative website FrontPageMag.com, hit it on the head several years ago when he described the liberal mindset in words that ring just as true today:

Conservatives are ignorant, stupid, and evil, or some combination of the three . Liberals, of course, are the opposite of all these. They’re knowledgeable, intelligent, and good. Note that if you believe your opponents to be stupid or evil, you don’t try to reason with them. Stupid people, like animals and children, need guidance by their superiors . That, in a nutshell, is the liberal mentality. It explains why liberals are so angry, hateful and spiteful . Take it from me, a former liberal.